Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 212 (TS)

Madhava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-02

K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.SURENDER, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused questioning the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.19 of 2008, dated 11.04.2012, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the correspondent of RNT Memorial Shantiniketan School at Karimnagar. He lodged a complaint with the CBI. According to PW.1, the institution was paying the contribution of the Provident Fund for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school since the year 2003. The appellant was working as the Enforcement Officer in the office of PFO, Sub- Regional office, at Karimnagar. The appellant used to visit the institution and verify the files pertaining to the EPF (Employees provident Fund) regarding the contribution made by the institution to its employees. The institution used to maintain all the required registers. The appellant went to the institution in November 2006 and informed the management that they have to pay EPF contribution immediately and also asked for giving a cheque. Accordingly, a postdated cheque was given. However, even before the date of the cheque, PW.1 paid the amount by way of challan and took back the cheque from the appellant. The appellant took two attendance registers from the institution’s office premises and did not return the said attendance registers. For the month of March, April, May, and June 2007, the PF contribution were not paid by the institution. The Assistant Commissioner of the Provident Fund, issued notice under Section 7-A and Section 5(D) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) to the institution, and asked PW.1 to participate in the enquiry. PW.1 went and met the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, and the appellant was asked to conduct an enquiry and submit a report by 16.08.2007. Though the Assistant Commissioner had asked the appellant to enquire, however, he did not visit the institution. Thereafter, the appellant informed PW.1 that the institution had to contribute the Provident Fund for three or four persons whose names were mentioned in the registers that were earlier taken, and a penalty of Rs.1 lakh would be imposed. The appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- as a bribe to reduce the penalty. Thereafter, the appellant informed PW.1 that the institution had to contribute the Provident Fund for three or four persons whose names were mentioned in the registers that were earlier taken, and a penalty of Rs.1 lakh would be imposed. The appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- as a bribe to reduce the penalty. PW.1 asked the appellant to consider his request, upon which the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- as a bribe to prepare a favourable report in favour of the institution. The demand was made on 21.11.2007. The appellant informed PW.1 that he would come to the institution on the next day, i.e., on 22.11.2007. 3. In the morning on 22.11.2007, PW.1 met the CBI Officer and lodged a Telugu-written complaint-Ex.P1. The said complaint was handed over to PW.9. PW.9, having received the complaint, made enquiries and came to know that the appellant did not have a good reputation. The trap was arranged on the same day. PW.2- independent mediator and another person were called and they assembled in the R & B Guest House in Karimnagar. In the presence of PW.1, PW.2, and other trap party members, the pre-trap proceedings were undertaken. PW.2 was asked to accompany PW.1 and observe what transpires between PW.1 and the appellant, and a voice recorder was handed over to PW.1 with instructions to record the conversation between him and the appellant. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party went to the school. Both PWs.1 and 2 got down from the vehicle and went inside the office. 4. The appellant arrived at the school at 4.30 P.M. Then, the appellant asked PW.1 to enter the chambers alone, without PW.2. The appellant then called three teachers, enquired about their salaries, and recorded their statements. The appellant also took the signature of PW.1 on some papers before asking for the bribe amount. PW.1 then handed over the amount. When the appellant asked PW.1 to keep the said amount in a cover and then hand it over, PW.1 picked up a cover from his table drawer, placed the amount in the cover, and gave it to the appellant. One Kondayya was with the appellant in the chambers while the appellant was recording the statements of the teachers, and thereafter, Kondayya was sent out from the chambers before the appellant accepted the bribe amount from PW.1. 5. One Kondayya was with the appellant in the chambers while the appellant was recording the statements of the teachers, and thereafter, Kondayya was sent out from the chambers before the appellant accepted the bribe amount from PW.1. 5. After receiving the amount from PW.1, the earlier attendance registers, which were taken by the appellant, were returned. The appellant then informed that the amount given was not sufficient and asked PW.1 to arrange Rs.10,000/- more. The appellant and PW.1 came out from the chambers and went inside the office. PW.2 was sitting in the office. PW.1 gave the signal to the trap party. Having received the signal, the trap party entered the office. The digital voice recorder was taken by CBI Officer from PW.1. The test on the left-hand fingers of the appellant proved positive for phenolphthalein powder, and the amount was recovered from the left-pant pocket of the appellant. Thereafter, the witnesses were examined, and the statements of the appellant, PW.1, and others were recorded. The post-trap proceedings were concluded. 6. The investigation was then handed over to PW.10-Inspector by PW.9-DSP. PW.10 conducted part of the investigation and handed over the case for further investigation to PW.11. 7. The learned Special Judge examined PWs.1 to 11, and marked Exs.P1 to P8, as well as MOs.1 to 6. The appellant examined DWs.1 and DW.2, and Ex.D1 was marked. During the cross-examination of PW.6, Exs.D2 to D5 were also brought on record, which are the Acquittance and the Attendance registers of the institution. 8. The learned Special Judge, finding favour with the prosecution’s version, accordingly convicted the appellant. 9. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao, appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that PW.1 has falsely implicated the appellant due to the appellant conducting enquiry for not depositing the Provident Fund amount of the employees in the institution. Admittedly, there was a digital recorder on which the conversation was recorded; however, the said digital recording was suppressed. PW.2, who accompanied PW.1, stayed outside, violating the directions of the DSP to accompany PW.1 and remain with him. Due to the enquiry conducted under Section 7-A of the Act at the instance of the appellant, PW.1 has falsely implicated the appellant to scare the employees of the PFO office and to ensure that no further enquiry would be conducted against the institution. Due to the enquiry conducted under Section 7-A of the Act at the instance of the appellant, PW.1 has falsely implicated the appellant to scare the employees of the PFO office and to ensure that no further enquiry would be conducted against the institution. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant had harassed the institution’s employees including PW.1. Attendance Register was taken and only on the trap date, the registers were returned after receiving the bribe amount. 10. It is admitted by PW.1 that Section 7-A enquiry was conducted in the institution by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Karimnagar, even prior to the appellant’s visit to the institution. It is further admitted by PW.1 that from the year 1996 to 2003, the institution did not contribute any Provident Fund for the teaching and non-teaching staff. For the first time, contribution was started in the year 2003, after the Provident Fund Inspectors visited the institution and conducted an inspection. Initially, the Provident Fund contribution was made for 21 employees, and thereafter, Provident Fund contributions were also made for nearly 13 teachers of the institution. PW.1 further admitted that there were temporary employees, whose Provident Fund contributions were also not deposited. PW.1 admitted that in the cases of N.Prasad, Ms.Chinthala Prameela, S.Shiva Kumar, and Sattaiah, no contribution was made by the institution, as evidenced by the entries in Ex.P7. The appellant also visited the institution and collected Rs.10,000/- and Rs.14,998/- in the form of Demand Drafts towards arrears. PW.1 also admitted that after the trap, the institution stopped contributing to the Provident Fund on behalf of employees. 11. PW.6 worked as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner during the relevant time. According to him, the institution, i.e., RNT Memorial Shantiniketan School, was under the purview of the Act and there were defaulters. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted under Section 7-A of the Act. PW.6 further admitted that notices were issued to the institution and the appellant was deputed to recover those arrears. The enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act against the institution was initiated on the basis of the information provided by the appellant. 12. On the date of the trap, PW.2 was asked to accompany PW.1. The voice recorder was handed over to PW.1 to record the conversation between the appellant and PW.1. The enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act against the institution was initiated on the basis of the information provided by the appellant. 12. On the date of the trap, PW.2 was asked to accompany PW.1. The voice recorder was handed over to PW.1 to record the conversation between the appellant and PW.1. The voice recorder was switched on by the CBI Officer, and according to PW.1, the conversation that was recorded on the digital voice recorder was transformed into an audio cassette. PW.11-Investigating Officer stated that the conversation on the digital voice recorder was not transcribed since the voice of the appellant was not audible. The contents of the digital voice recorder were transferred onto a compact disc, but they were not filed. To lend credibility to the prosecution case, the voice recorder ought to have been filed before the Court for the Court to infer about the correctness of the claim of the prosecution that the voice of the appellant was not properly recorded. 13. The original voice recorder nor the audio CD was produced before the Court. PW.11 admitted that he did not seek any opinion from the CFSL on the recorded conversation. The CBI ought to have filed both the voice recorder and the compact disc before the Court to ensure transparency in the investigation and to demonstrate that the prosecution has not suppressed any evidence. 14. PW.1, PW.5, and also PW.11-Investigating Officer admitted that the institution was not depositing the Provident Fund amount, and accordingly, the appellant had lodged a complaint, for which reason an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act was initiated at the instance of the appellant. 15. On the date of trap, apart from the non-submission of the digital voice recorder, PW.2, who was asked to accompany PW.1 to observe what transpires between PW.1 and the appellant, stayed outside the office in violation of the directions of the DSP (PW.8). According to PW.2, it was PW.1 who informed him that the appellant did not agree to PW.2’s presence, and hence, PW.2 stayed outside. In the second mediators’ report, it is mentioned that while entering the office, PW.1 asked PW.2 to stay outside and wait for a signal from PW.1. The reasoning provided in the second mediators’ report suggests that PW.1 wanted to keep PW.2 outside. 16. In the second mediators’ report, it is mentioned that while entering the office, PW.1 asked PW.2 to stay outside and wait for a signal from PW.1. The reasoning provided in the second mediators’ report suggests that PW.1 wanted to keep PW.2 outside. 16. Admittedly, the institution failed to deposit the Provident Fund amount for the employees and was facing an enquiry on the basis of the information provided by the appellant. DW.1, who worked as the Assistant Provident Commissioner, and PW.6 who worked as the Regional Provident Commissioner, stated that the appellant was responsible for recoveries from the institution and also recovered amounts that were outstanding. On the basis of the information provided by the appellant, the enquiry was initiated. 17. The false implication of the appellant appears to be probable when the entire case of the prosecution is considered. According to PW.1, the reason for demanding a bribe was to prepare a favourable report in favour of the institution. The appellant had already provided information that resulted in an enquiry and also recovered the amounts due from the institution. To cover up the situation, PW.1 has falsely implicated the appellant. PW.1 further admitted that after the trap, the institution stopped contributing to the Provident Fund on behalf of the employees. The entrapment resulted in the institution violating the provisions of the Act, and the institution failed to deposit the Provident Fund contributions of its employees. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as it is apparent that the appellant has been falsely implicated, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 19. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.19 of 2008 dated 11.04.2012 is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.